Cross-Channel migrants to be detained as France treaty comes into force
The deal, which has now been approved by the European Commission, means the UK will be able to send people crossing the Channel in small boats back to France in exchange for asylum seekers with ties to Britain.
It also means that anyone arriving in a small boat can be detained immediately, and space has been set aside at immigration removal centres in the expectation that detentions will begin within days.
The Prime Minister said the ratification of the treaty will 'send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France'.
But opposition parties have criticised the deal amid reports that the pilot scheme will see only 50 people a week returned to France while this year has seen a weekly average of more than 800 people make the crossing.
The deal has also been criticised by refugee charities, which have urged the Government to provide more safe, legal routes for asylum seekers instead.
Ministers have so far declined to say how many people could be returned under the deal, and insist that if the pilot is successful the figure will increase.
Under the terms of the agreement, announced during French President Emmanuel Macron's state visit last month, adults arriving on small boats will face being returned to France if their asylum claim is inadmissible.
In exchange, the same number of people will be able to come to the UK on a new legal route, provided they have not attempted a crossing before and subject to documentation and security checks.
The Home Office said it had also learned from the 'lengthy legal challenges' over the previous government's Rwanda scheme and would 'robustly defend' any attempts to block removal through the courts.
It is the first such deal with France, with the pilot scheme set to run until June 2026, pending a longer-term agreement.
Sir Keir said the deal was 'The product of months of grown-up diplomacy delivering real results for British people'.
He added: 'The days of gimmicks and broken promises are over – we will restore order to our borders with the seriousness and competence the British people deserve.'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said it was 'an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs that are behind these crossings – undermining their claims that those who travel to the UK illegally can't be returned to France'.
Ratification of the deal comes as both Britain and France battle to bring the small boats problem under control, with 2025 on course to be a record year for crossings.
Some 25,436 people have already made the journey this year, according to PA news agency analysis of Home Office figures – 49% higher than at the same point in 2024.
The issue has also sparked concern that a series of protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers could lead to public disorder similar to last year's riots.
On Monday, the Home Office announced it was providing another £100 million to tackle people smuggling and would introduce new powers to seize devices from people suspected of facilitating crossings.
Ministers have also launched a crackdown on illegal working in an effort to reduce the 'pull factors' said to be encouraging people to make the journey, while French authorities have changed their guidance to allow police officers to intercept boats while they are in shallow waters.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp attacked the plans, saying they would return 'just 6% of illegal arrivals' and 'make no difference whatsoever'.
He added: 'The Rwanda removals deterrent, under which 100% of illegal arrivals would be removed, was ready to go last summer but Labour cancelled it just days before it was due to start with no proper replacement plan. As a result, this year so far has been the worst ever for illegal immigrants crossing the Channel.
'Only removing all illegal immigrants upon arrival will provide the necessary deterrent to stop the crossings. This is the Conservative plan, but Labour is too weak to implement it and as a result they have lost control of our borders.'
While the Conservatives' Rwanda plan was in theory uncapped, it was expected to take only around 1,000 asylum seekers in its first five years of operation thanks to limited capacity in the East African nation.
The plan, which Sir Keir had previously dismissed as a 'gimmick', was scrapped as one of the first acts of the incoming Labour Government last year.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
18 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Miriam González Durántez weighs up move to lead new Spanish liberal party
For almost 30 years, she let her husband, the former British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, soak up the political limelight, but 10 years after he quit politics to join Facebook, Miriam González Durántez is weighing up a move to enter the political fray herself. The lawyer and former EU foreign adviser is considering heading a new liberal party in her native Spain after a perceived gap opened up after the collapse of the centre-liberal party Ciudadanos (Citizens) and amid ongoing crises in the current socialist government headed by Pedro Sánchez. It is understood she has had talks with the Renew grouping of liberal parties in Europe earlier this summer with a view to launching a party that aims to re-energise the political centre, not just in Spain but also in the EU. A lawyer by profession, with a formidable reputation, González Durántez is already laying the foundations for a potential move into the public arena. In 2023, she founded España Mejor, Better Spain, a non-profit political organisation which aims to encourage Spanish civil society to participate in the development of public policy. Among the goals of Better Spain, which some might read as the bones of a manifesto, are a new water policy, a 'realistic' housing policy', more and better jobs, tax proposals for young people, a tax policy 'for everyone to grow', and the elimination of special legal privileges for 250,000 people in Spain including public officials. At a public meeting of Better Spain in Cádiz on Friday, she said: 'If civil society proves incapable of cleaning up politics I'll consider establishing a political party,' the local La Voz de Cádiz reported. Clegg was a prominent politician in the UK, serving as leader of the Liberal Democrats between 2007 and 2015 and becoming deputy prime minister to Conservative David Cameron between 2010 and 2015, as part of the first full coalition government in Britain since 1945. During his tenure as leader, he rejected the 'tribalism of left and right' and instead positioned the party in the 'radical centre' of middle-income progressive voters. He supported reduced taxes, electoral reform, cuts and an increased focus on environmental issues. He stepped down as leader of the party after it was nearly wiped out in 2015 election, with some blaming the defeat on his decision to get into bed with the Conservatives in the first place, breaking a key election promise over university fees in the process. Clegg quit politics in the UK and took up a new role in 2018 in California as the head of global affairs and communications at Facebook. At the same time González Durántez pursued a number of interests including a mentoring project, Inspiring Girls International, and Altius Advisory, a consultancy she founded aimed at bettering business in Africa. Before that she spent years in Brussels and London advising on diversity, liberal reform, and international trade policy. They returned to the UK from California after Clegg left Meta in January and she now spends weekdays in Spain and weekends when she can in London, according to a recent interview. Her lengthy career included three stints as a member of cabinet in the EU's external relations commission, including one as a senior trade adviser to Chris Patten, the former British commissioner for external relations. She also spent two years working as a negotiator at the World Trade Organization. Her father, José Antonio González Caviedes, was mayor of Olmedo and served as a senator for the conservative People's party (PP) from 1989 until he died in 1996. González Durántez was not available for comment, but when asked if she was considering setting up her own party, a spokesperson for Better Spain said the lawyer had been working for the past two years to mobilise civil society and on effort to 'clean up Spanish politics' and 'end the pendulum of corruption and counteract polarisation'. The spokesperson added: 'She has publicly stated on numerous occasions that if Spanish political parties continue to ignore civil society, she would consider other options including political ones. For the time being she continues working on those objectives within España Mejor. 'As part of her work as the founder of España Mejor, she has held meetings with all sorts of organisations, public institutions, businesses and citizens across Spain, as well as multiple political parties, within Spain and Europe.' Founding a new party and bringing it to a position of political heft is laden with risk in Spain, as it is in any country. Spanish politics remains doggedly bipartisan, with the socialist and conservative parties rarely achieving an overall majority. While the two-party system has been loosened from both left (Podemos) and right (Vox) the attempt by Ciudadanos, led by Albert Rivera, a young lawyer, to break the deadlock fizzled out to the point that the party didn't even contest the 2023 general election. Pablo Simón, a political scientist at the Carlos III university in Madrid, predicted an uphill struggle for González if she throws her hat into the ring. 'This proposal for a new centrist party seems to come from above, not from the grassroots,' he said. 'I think it's a bad moment to launch such a party. For one thing, voters who are fed up with the government are moving the right and the far right and prefer pre-existing parties to new ones. It would make more sense to wait for the European elections when there is a better chance of gaining representation. 'Miriam González is largely unknown in Spain. When you launch a party it's best to have a someone well-known to front it. Perhaps González would make a better deputy than leader.' He added that liberal parties had had little success in newer democracies such as Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. 'This is because, being new democracies, the politics are polarised between left and right.' It may be some time before Miriam González Durántez decides whether to follow her husband's footsteps into formal politics, but if she does she will join an illustrious list of power couples who have graced the world stage. 1. Bill Clinton and Hillary ClintonAlthough she was unsuccessful in her attempt to follow Bill into the White House, Hillary Clinton and her husband were at one time the most powerful couple in modern American politics. A lawyer, politician and diplomat, Hillary achieved high office in her own right as two-time senator for New York and US secretary of state. The pair continue to wield influence with the Clinton Foundation. 2. Nelson Mandela and Winnie MandelaBefore their divorce and her marginalisation after his release from prison in 1990, the couple were considered the mother and father of the nation of South Africa. Winnie Mandela became an MP and a minister and during the fight against apartheid she was a potent symbol of the struggle, but her reputation was seriously damaged several times by allegations of murder and corruption. She was convicted of kidnapping, assault, theft and fraud. As one of the most visible faces of the resistance, she was regularly detained and harassed by the police and considered so powerful she was even prohibited from speaking to the media. 3. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Néstor KirchnerCristina Fernández de Kirchner became the first woman to be elected president of Argentina in 2007, a role she held until 2015. Succeeding her husband Néstor, the charismatic but divisive figure was permanently banned from public office in June over a corruption conviction.
Times
18 minutes ago
- Times
Violent, lawless, broken Britain? The facts tell a different story
When Mexico warned its citizens about the risks of visiting Britain, it sounded absurd — like a parody of a Foreign Office travel alert. 'Robberies and physical assaults, mainly involving knives, have increased,' says the official advice. Britain is 'relatively safe' but, if visiting, it's still best to 'maintain regular contact with loved ones' back in Mexico and 'inform them about your situation and schedule'. This from a country where cartel violence claims tens of thousands of lives each year. But it chimes with what a great many Brits now believe. Poll after poll finds the public convinced that crime is getting far worse — and ready to believe Nigel Farage's summer campaign about 'lawless Britain'. NHS hospital data shows knife assaults last year fell to a 25-year low, with the number treated for violent assault close to half what it was in 2000. Crime surveys agree. By such measures our streets have seldom, if ever, been safer. So what's going on? The answer is not just about crime but about the way social media now acts as a distorting lens through which millions see their country. When shrill voices dominate, hyperbole wins — and Britain is portrayed not just as troubled but in ruins, terrorised by immigrant-driven crime, even close to civil war. And if the official figures show none of this? Well, then those figures must be wrong. Once this might have been dismissed as digital drivel. But in an era where more people get their news from social media than any newspaper, it matters — and it can change politics. If enough voters think that Britain is descending into chaos, it creates a new political force, one where 'the British state' is secretive, malign and run by the reviled elite. Such language is working well for Nigel Farage, whom polls put on course to be the next prime minister. Rather than challenge all this, the Tories are trying to copy him. • Precrime profiling is no longer a fantasy The gap between the public debate and reality becomes so wide that many voters may no longer see the country they actually live in, or recognise the real progress that's been made. It becomes impossible to believe what the facts do seem to suggest: that our society, for all its faults, is probably safer, richer and better than any before it. Today, progress is the truth that dare not speak its name. Major environmental and social achievements are barely known and, when mentioned, universally disbelieved. The global fall in crime — driven by advances in forensics, the ubiquity of cameras and smarter policing — has been met with a global disbelief. Such scepticism is partly human nature: as living standards rise, expectations rise faster. What was once extraordinary soon becomes the baseline; discontent becomes the norm. Which is just as well, because discontent remains the engine of human progress. But in Britain, there's more to it. Some crime is genuinely surging, such as shoplifting and snatch theft. This is all too visible, while the fall in violence and burglary is invisible. This imbalance hits perceptions: people who notice their local store starting to security-tag lamb joints will not believe crime has halved. The picture isn't helped by improvement in how police record crime, which can make it harder to disentangle reporting quirks from real trends. Most crimes have always gone unreported. That's why the Thatcher government set up the Crime Survey, asking thousands of households if they have suffered crime and, if so, what type. It shows that over the past 20 years — that is since the start of Strictly Come Dancing — robbery is down 60 per cent. Bike theft and car theft have both halved. Burglary is down by two-thirds. And all violent crime? According to the survey, it has halved since 2005. When Tony Blair won his third term, even he would never have dared to predict that a collapse in crime was under way. Even now it is, quite literally, unbelievable. The Violence Research Group at Cardiff University keeps a tab on this, checking surveyed crime against hospital trends. 'Serious violence in England and Wales has decreased substantially,' it concludes in its latest report. 'This message needs to be much better known, not least because it reflects better prevention and because fear of violence, often stoked by reports of rare tragic violent events, corrodes individual and community wellbeing.' Why isn't the message better known? When violence strikes, it can be spectacular. When progress happens slowly, invisibly or against the grain of received wisdom, it lacks a natural spokesman. The Tories won't be believed and their new opponents want to tell a very different story indeed. 'Politics is about sales,' Farage once said. 'It's about selling ideas, it's about selling hope. Sometimes, it's about selling fear.' The narrative of a migrant-driven crimewave — so powerful for European populists — has always been harder to get going in Britain. Our immigrant population has certainly doubled, but crime halved over the same time. But individual stories, especially horrific crimes, can be highlighted and amplified to create the idea of a national crisis. The AfD pioneered this in Germany with press releases ten years ago. In recent months some British social media accounts have started a kind of ethnic-minority Crimewatch, scouring the local press for stories, then presenting them as a national metaphor. • Man arrested over death of Shona Stevens more than 30 years ago Matthew Goodwin, a former University of Kent politics professor, now a GB News presenter, has become adept at all this and is emerging as philosopher king of political doomscrolling. If you wish to be told that our society is about 'to blow', or see his calculations about how white Brits will be in the minority by 2063, you can join the 82,000 subscribers to his Substack. As an academic, Goodwin established himself as the most thoughtful analyst of the populist right. His switch from observer to activist has been fascinating to watch. Other actors have rushed on to the new stage. An online video from Crush Crime, a grassroots group 'campaigning to make Britain safer', drew 3.6 million views after declaring 'theft has become legal in Britain'. Some '207,000 bikes were stolen in 2023', it proclaimed. It didn't say that this has halved over the past 15 years. When a poll found that 57 per cent of women feel unsafe in the streets of London, Goodwin popped up to 'say out loud' that 'a big reason is mass uncontrolled immigration'. If so, why would far larger surveys show a three-decade rise in the proportion of British women saying they feel safe walking home at night? All this is not fake news. It's truth-adjacent: the almost surgical use of a real figure to create a false impression, while avoiding context that would shatter the illusion. A 'think tank', real or concocted, can declare, for example, that Afghans are 22 times more likely to rape: a technically defensible but fundamentally misleading mirage. We now have a new digital news architecture hungry for such figures, unlikely to scrutinise their robustness or provenance. Government failure to publish real figures creates a blank canvas. This resonates because it's based on an important truth: a great many Afghans and others arrived on small boats, paying people-smugglers. They're unvetted. Lawbreakers. More of a risk. The Tories oversaw this and Labour can't control it, making fertile ground for Reform. But to make this into a tale of a 'lawless' country is impossible to reconcile with the general collapse in crime shown by the Crime Survey for England & Wales. So: what to do? Last week Farage came up with an answer. The Crime Survey is invalid, he said, 'discredited', simply because, being a victim-based survey, it excludes shoplifting. He'd stick to police records, which are easier to cherry-pick. But most of all, he said, 'We all know that crime has risen significantly over the course of the last few years.' On one hand, four decades of crime data and nationwide NHS hospital data. On the other hand, what 'we all know'. This is the politics of perception. What of critics publishing annoying, contrary data? Farage opened a recent press conference by dealing with one: me. Nelson thinks that 'all is well with the world and there's absolutely nothing to worry about at all', he said. I think there's plenty to worry about — but I'd also argue not just that the streets are safer but that, in general, this is probably the best time to be alive. That is to say: if you could choose any era to live in Britain, but not your place in society, you'd choose right now. I'm in no doubt how aloof, how Marie Antoinette-ish this sounds: the leitmotif of the out-of-touch elite. Farage has a point. I've lived in a Highland town and on a decaying council estate. I've lived on an overseas military base and, now, in suburbia. None of these experiences give me a national view. That's why I've spent a career collecting the data: to check my own instincts and prejudices. I started doing so as a young reporter at this paper, hoping to find stories and show how bad the world was. To my shock, the world was not just getting better but at an unprecedented pace. The turn of the millennium had ushered in a wave of globalisation that was lifting millions out of poverty, making the world not just richer but more equal. Incremental improvements had been changing lives more profoundly than the dramas that dominate headlines. Newspapers tend to accentuate the negative because readers want to know what's going wrong, what threats may be brewing. But newspapers also deploy balance and perspective, mixing darkness with light. Journalism is anchored to facts: no one pays to read junk. And almost no one pays for social media. It's a device selling people's attention to advertisers, with algorithms designed to engage (or enrage), to keep you hooked. Yet most Brits now use social media as a news source. The overall picture people have is of a world getting worse, not better. Many big trends are almost unheard of, let alone believed. Take the climate. The Times commissioned YouGov to find out how many would think UK's greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by about half since 2000. The answer: only 12 per cent. And how many think the number of assaults resulting in hospital treatment each year in Britain has reduced by around a half? Just 22 of the 2,247 people surveyed: that is to say, 1 per cent. Sadiq Khan campaigned on London's air quality 'emergency' and he's quite right to say that dirty air costs lives. But what he doesn't say is that, even before Ulez, the city's air was far purer than at any point in its measurable history. In fact, nationwide, levels of every major pollutant — sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) — have at least halved since 2000. Our poll shows only 11 per cent are aware of this achievement. The recent alarm over river quality is a classic example. Rivers were long used as sewers: less so, as standards rose. Now we have real-time flow meters, in-situ water quality testing and more. New disclosure rules revealed the storm-water sewage situation, to justifiable outrage. But it's not new: it's just visible. Before, it wasn't. When the Kinks released Waterloo Sunset in 1967 the 'dirty old river' was biologically dead. Now the Thames teems with dozens of varieties of fish: as does the Mersey and Humber. When a child is killed on the road, it reverberates. Less so figures showing that airbags, speed limits and other safety advances have halved road deaths over the past 20 years. If you lose a relative to breast cancer, it's of no comfort to know that better detection and treatment has almost halved its mortality rate since 1990. Or that deaths from stroke and heart disease, two of our biggest killers, also halved over the same period. We bank these improvements: and we should. Far too many still die on the roads and from cancer. That's where the attention should be focused. But it shouldn't hurt to look back, to see how far we've come — and use that to inspire hope, rational optimism, in what can be achieved next. 'I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them,' said Andy Bernard in the American version of The Office. But was life really better in the 1950s, when thousands died from smog and most lived in what's now called absolute poverty? Or the 1960s, when just one in ten children made it to sixth form, let alone to university? Even going back to 1995 would mean an average 25 per cent pay cut in today's money. And none of today's digital comforts. Economic advances slowed to a near halt after the 2008 crash: today's living standards are still lower than then. A genuine scandal. But progress in health, tech, crime and the environment continued. The arrival of AI opens the prospect of another era of scientific, health and economic advances. The biggest problem facing any country is demographic collapse, and almost every country in Europe is bracing itself for a steep decline in its working age population. But not Britain. Alone in Europe, we're projected to grow at a normal rate. If demographics is destiny, ours is pretty strong. Our problems are significant: record taxes alongside creaking public services, and welfare dysfunction that scars communities. A small-boats crisis that the government is unable to resolve. Reform UK is being powered not simply by digital black magic but genuine despair at both Labour and a Tory party still unsure if it wants to fight Farage or copy him. Politically, it makes perfect sense for Reform to stoke despair by telling a story of Britain close to 'societal collapse'. It just doesn't make sense to believe it. Perhaps the ultimate sign of national confidence is the migration figures: not so much the arrivals, but the departures. Last year, just 77,000 Brits emigrated, the lowest since records began. Among those who remain, I like to think, are some who share my deeply unpopular belief: that in spite of our problems, this is an amazing country. And that now, more than ever, there is no better place in the world to call home.
South Wales Guardian
39 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Recall Parliament to debate Netanyahu's Gaza plan, Green MP urges
Fronting the Green Party's bid for a recall of Parliament during the summer recess, Ellie Chowns warned the Israeli security cabinet's plan risked creating 'untold human suffering'. Mr Netanyahu's office has unveiled new principles for military action which include 'the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip', 'Israeli security control in the Gaza Strip' and 'the establishment of an alternative civil administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority'. The Israel Defence Forces 'will prepare for taking control of Gaza City while distributing humanitarian assistance to the civilian population outside the combat zones'. More than 61,000 people have been killed during Israeli military action in Gaza, according to Gaza's health ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count, in a conflict which began after a Hamas-led attack killed around 1,200 people in southern Israel on October 7 2023. Among the count are at least 13 people killed in southern Gaza on Thursday as they sought aid in an Israeli military zone. 'Netanyahu's brutal plan to take control of Gaza is yet another declaration of intent to commit war crimes and will lead to untold catastrophic civilian suffering,' Ms Chowns said. 'The UK must do far more than simply express disapproval. 'We need to recall Parliament immediately to hold the UK Government to account, to urgently assess whether we are meeting our obligations under the Genocide Convention and to enact immediate measures — including sanctions on the Israeli cabinet and suspension of all military co-operation and arms sales — to prevent further atrocities. 'The consequences of delay will be measured in countless innocent lives lost.' The North Herefordshire MP also called on the Government to publish its risk assessment of genocide in Gaza or a timeline for evidence-gathering. She also urged ministers to use diplomatic channels to press for a ceasefire, unimpeded humanitarian access into Gaza, safe release of the remaining hostages and an international inquiry into allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Israel. Critics of Mr Netanyahu's plan include Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who said the Israeli government risked bringing 'more bloodshed'. He said: 'The Israeli government's decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong and we urge it to reconsider immediately. 'This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages.' German chancellor Friedrich Merz said Israel 'has the right to defend itself against Hamas's terror' and added working towards a ceasefire and release of the hostages were a 'top priority' for the government in Berlin. But 'the even harsher military action by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, approved by the Israeli cabinet last night, makes it increasingly difficult for the German government to see how these goals will be achieved', he said.
